Can the Chain Rule be Applied to Show the Identity in Vector Calculus Homework?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on applying the chain rule in vector calculus to demonstrate the identity involving the divergence of a vector field, specifically \(\nabla \cdot F = \hat{r} \cdot \frac{dF}{dr}\). The user attempts to express the divergence in terms of the radial unit vector \(\hat{r}\) and the derivatives of the components of the vector field \(F\). A correction is provided regarding the misunderstanding of the gradient operator \(\vec{\nabla}\) and the nature of the resulting scalar versus vector output.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus concepts, including divergence and gradient.
  • Familiarity with the chain rule in multivariable calculus.
  • Knowledge of vector notation and operations in three-dimensional space.
  • Basic proficiency in handling derivatives with respect to multiple variables.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the divergence operator in vector fields.
  • Learn about the application of the chain rule in multivariable calculus.
  • Explore the relationship between scalar and vector fields in vector calculus.
  • Investigate examples of vector calculus identities and their proofs.
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on vector calculus, as well as anyone seeking to clarify the application of the chain rule in this context.

yy205001
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


\widetilde{F}(r)=F1(r)i+F2(r)j+F3(r)k
\hat{r}=r/r
r(x,y,z)=xi+yj+zk, r=abs(r)=sqrt(x2+y2+z2)
(Hint: The chain rule will be helpful for this question.)

Show that:
\nabla\cdotF = \hat{r}\cdotdF/dr.



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


My attempt:
First, \nabla\cdotF=(dF1/dr,dF2/dr,dF3/dr)

Then, Start on the RHS.
\hat{r}\cdotdF/dr
=\hat{r}\cdot(dF1/dr,dF2/dr,dF3/dr)
=((x,y,z)/r)\cdot(dF1/dr,dF2/dr,dF3/dr)
Now, i use the chain rule here.
=((x,y,z)/r)\cdot(dF1/dx*dx/dr, dF2/dy*dy/dr, dF3/dz*dz/dr)

And i can't do further more here, can anyone help me on this?
Thanks in advanced!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
yy205001 said:

The Attempt at a Solution


My attempt:
First, \nabla\cdotF=(dF1/dr,dF2/dr,dF3/dr)

I'm pretty sure that's not how the gradient works.
First of all, the "definition" is
\vec\nabla = \left( \frac{d}{dx}, \frac{d}{dy}, \frac{d}{dz} \right)

Secondly, there is a dot in between, which means that you should get a scalar and not a vector like you have written.
 
ops! So my definition is wrong! That's why i can't do it further more!
I can prove it now!
thanks CompuChip
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K